Posted On: December 17, 2008, 12:46 pm CST

Posted By: HanValen

He has already made a name for himself with other proclamations which the group has made, primarily leading the calls for prosecution of Dr. Kevorkian, so no.

He has a weird point with the suit, although I believe that the timing of actions will come into effect.

The first amendment indicates that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...' Respecting in this case not meaning 'to give honor to' but the more general meaning of 'regarding.'

In this situation, Congress has made a law in which they are supporting a company which is making available a specific religious product. They can not do this. They are forbidden from making laws regarding any religions at all.

Now, the arguments for this being ok...
1st) When they made the law (the bailout plan) they may not have been aware of this product being launched. If they were & still went forward, then someone could be in trouble.

2nd) This isn't as much a law regarding a religion as much as it was a law regarding a company which has a product regarding a religion. The connection is pretty darn nebulous at best, but this is actually a great argument about why the government taking OWNERSHIP of a company is a horrible idea. It then starts raising these legal questions about if the government as an owner in a private company can provide products to meet the needs of various religions.

I don't believe that this product directly supports the religion in any sense, although there could be an argument of financial gain by the members due to a cheaper/more readily available product... which would make this a viable case.

Can't give tax breaks to the left-handed worshipers of Beenu without giving them to the splinter sect of those right-handed worshipers of Beenu also.

I wish that the group bringing the suit was a little less 'foaming at the mouth' because the case could have some merit.